pharyngulafandomcom-20200213-history
Criticism of libertarianism
Adherents of different ideologies have criticized libertarianism for various reasons. General criticisms John Rawls and Ernest Partridge argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that harm some individuals so long as they are beneficial overall. They may further argue that rights and markets can only function among "a well-knit community of citizens... with an active understanding that every citizen, without exception and whatever his accomplishment, bears an enormous burden of moral debt to both predecessors and contemporaries". If these prerequisites for a libertarian society depend on paying this debt, these critics argue, the libertarian form of government will either fail or be expanded beyond recognition.Partridge, Ernest. "With Liberty and Justice for Some." Environmental Philosophy edited by Michael Zimmerman, Baird Callicott, Karen Warren, Irene Klaver, and John Clark, 2004.http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/liberty.htm In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare" in the anthology, "Ethics: The Big Questions", philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse “the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state.” Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor “in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires.” He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties: the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor “not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.” According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental moral principle ‘ “Ought” implies “Can” ‘ from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that “in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death” and that “by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs.” Having argued that ‘ ”Ought” implies “Can” ’ establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, “The Conflict Resolution Principle” to argue that it is reasonable to make it a moral requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.Ethics: The Big Questions. Philosophy, the Big questions. "From Liberty to Welfare", Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1998, p.237-241 Specific criticisms Economics Critics of the economic system favored by some libertarians, laissez-faire capitalism, argue that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They argue that markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health, and that advances in economics since Adam Smith show that people's actions are not always rational. Other economic criticism concerns the transition to a libertarian society. Critics may argue that privatizing Social Security would cause a fiscal crisis in the short term and damage individuals' economic stability in the long term.[http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050321&s=chait032105 Chait, Jonathan. Blocking Move, The New Republic, March 21, 2005] Libertarians are opposed to any "privatization" that would include compulsory joining of a private system.Lew Rockwell, Bush's Market-Liberal Scam Another criticism involves Latin American economies, which were placed under economic policies sought and championed by libertarian economists, such as Milton Friedman[http://www.reason.com/news/show/118494.html DOHERTY, Brian. The Life and Times of Milton Friedman: Remembering the 20th century's most influential libertarian. Reason Magazine, March 2007 Print Edition]: Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible (the so-called miracle of Chile). Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws... Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America... growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses. Libertarianism's critics argue that the real-world results in Chile and elsewhere demonstrate that libertarian economic theory is not only faulty, but potentially threatens freedom, democracy, human rights, and economic growth. Of particular interest to economists is the "New Zealand Experiment," which began in 1984 when Roger Douglas became Minister of Finance and began radically restructuring the country's economy to fit the libertarian model. Over the next 15 years, New Zealand's economy and social capital faced a steady decline: the youth suicide rate grew sharply into one of the highest in the developed world; the proliferation of food banks increased dramatically; marked increases in violent and other crime were observed; the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992; and health care has been especially hard-hit, leading to a significant deterioration in health standards among working and middle class people. In addition, many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialised. Free trade critics argue that trade barriers are necessary for economic growth in some or all situations.http://www.businesspundit.com/criticism-of-free-trade/ Government decentralization or shrinkage John Donahue argues in The American Prospect that when power is shifted to local authorities, parochial local interests predominate at the expense of the whole, leading to inefficiency, corruption, and loss of freedom - as when limits on federal power were used to defend segregation. He claims with regard to proposals for federal devolution that, Collective value is squandered in the name of a constricted definition of gain. States win advantages that seem worthwhile only because other states bear much of the costs. America's most urgent public challenges... involve the stewardship of common interests. The fragmentation of authority makes success less likely."Donahue, John. The Devil in Devolution, American Prospect, Vol 8 Iss 32, May 1, 1997. Deontological ethical theories Jeffrey Friedman, editor of Critical Review, argues that libertarians often rely on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence automatically result in happiness, and shift the burden of proof to their opponents without justification, when in fact "it is the libertarian who is committed to the grand claim that, for some reason, intervention must always be avoided." Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent: if (as Boaz maintains) the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property the expense of others should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong.'"Friedman, Jeffrey, "Politics or Scholarship?", Critical Review, Vol. 6, No. 2-3, 1993. Pp 429–45. There are also criticisms of libertarian opposition to a standard, state-run educational system, and support for private education and home schooling with no government involvement. Paul Kienitz writes, "As increasing technology enables ever greater amplification of abilities, the separation between those who start out with abundant resources and those who don't, in terms of what they can then get out of the market, is likely to widen further... The least we can do is to not egregiously widen the gap ahead of time if we can help it. This is why I oppose such measures as fully privatizing education."Kienitz, Paul. I'm Still Not a Libertarian, "Critiques of Libertarianism," accessed 2/20/06. Environment Critics find libertarian attempts to protect the environment through property rights are lacking. They see natural resources (like whales or the atmosphere) as too hard to privatize, and legal responsibility for damage (from pollution or wild animals) as too hard to trace. Footnotes External links * Critiques of Libertarianism * Dissecting the Libertarian government model - A podcast featuring an interview with outspoken Libertarian Scott Horton of antiwar.com. * * Long, Roderick T., Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections Category:Libertarianism Libertarianism nl:Kritiek op het libertarisme